Community suitability of Oklahoma, United States Of America
Highly suitable confidence B · live score 81
91
best land · p90
99%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Governance, safety & tenure 78
Economy & cost 95
Society, freedom & health 88
Land & water 88
Climate, growing & hazards 86
Autonomy & access 82
Where it pushes back
Food & forage diversityGovernance & corruptionHealthcare quality
Within Oklahoma — 77 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Adair
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Washington
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 86
Cherokee
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Creek
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Delaware
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Le Flore
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Lincoln
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Okmulgee
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Ottawa
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Pawnee
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Pottawatomie
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Seminole
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Garvin
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Latimer
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Love
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Marshall
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
McIntosh
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Muskogee
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Nowata
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Okfuskee
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Pontotoc
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 84
Stephens
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Bryan
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 83
Craig
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Haskell
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Jefferson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Johnston
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 83
Mayes
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Osage
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Payne
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Caddo
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Carter
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Grady
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Hughes
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 82
Pittsburg
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 82
Rogers
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Sequoyah
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Tillman
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Atoka
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Coal
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Garfield
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Kay
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Kingfisher
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Kiowa
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Logan
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
McClain
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Murray
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Noble
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Pushmataha
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Wagoner
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Blaine
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Choctaw
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Cotton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Jackson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Alfalfa
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Canadian
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Comanche
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Grant
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
McCurtain
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Washita
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Major
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Beckham
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Custer
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Cleveland
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Greer
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Harmon
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Dewey
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Woods
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Roger Mills
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Woodward
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Texas
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Cimarron
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 71
Ellis
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 71
Beaver
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 70
Harper
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 69
Oklahoma
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 68
Tulsa
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
Reading the land, criterion by criterion
Each signal names the open dataset behind it and how measured it is.
Seed & agricultural autonomycountry C UPOV membership proxy
Governance & corruptioncountry A World Bank WGI + Transparency CPI
Cost of living, labour & landcountry A World Bank PPP, ILOSTAT
Monetary & capital sovereigntycountry A IMF/World Bank, Chinn-Ito
Personal freedomcountry A Cato/Fraser Human Freedom Index
Healthcare qualitycountry B WHO GHO
Disease / vector burden A Malaria Atlas + dengue Index P
Soil quality A SoilGrids (ISRIC)
Water availability & quality A WRI Aqueduct + AQUASTAT
Terrain & buildability A SRTM / NASADEM
Land cover & degradation A ESA WorldCover + Global Forest Watch
Biodiversity & alignment B Biodiversity Intactness Index
Climate & natural hazards A ThinkHazard + NASA FIRMS + USGS
Growing conditions A CHELSA / FAO GAEZ
Food & forage diversity B FAO GAEZ crop suitability + GLW
Coastal risk B Climate Central CoastalDEM
Energy potential A Global Solar Atlas + Global Wind Atlas
Natural building materials B SoilGrids clay + forest + geology
Environmental quality A SEDAC PM2.5 + VIIRS night-lights
Connectivity A Ookla + ITU (+ Starlink)
Accessibility A Malaria Atlas friction surface
Remoteness / surroundings A GPWv4 population density
Contamination legacy C Maus mining polygons + WRI power plants
Phase-1 desk screening
These are desk numbers from open data. Soil tests, water rights and the welcome of actual neighbours all wait for a visit — we'd rather say so than pretend.
Other regions in United States Of America
Compare nearby options, ranked by overall suitability.